SI of all sources has an interesting write up about how much stronger the NHL's position is compared to the NFL's: players resisted mandatory helmets, visors, voted overwhelmingly to keep fighting in the game. League was first to institute concussion protocols, specific discipline for head shots etc.

I'm sure some players did get hosed by the NHL teams encouraging them to play when they certainly shouldn't have. Some of the players in this lawsuit have a pretty weak case, however. I mean, seriously, it looks like it was put together by a child.

Well, let's not get too dismissive about the players' case. It's one thing for the game to be dangerous and you worry you'll break a leg or lose some teeth or something. It's another to think that it's okay to go back out for your next shift with blurred vision and a major headache because you don't know there are long term consequences for your brain. The crux of the suit will be whether or not the NHL knew something the players didn't and whether or not they took action to address what they knew in the interest of player safety. It's a shame that players (other than Gary Leeman) lose their careers to concussions, and, like Primeau, end up with long term disabilities or, like Lafontaine, with the Buffalo Sabres. But any dream of a billion dollar settlement is in Rob Ford territory.

JJ Abrams is more like it book. The Lindros case is a 1990s a precedent. The NHL was reluctant to act then. Yet, some of these players knew of the Lindros case while playing. Certainly some of those players knew of Muhammad Ali and his CTE symptoms going back to the 80s. Me thinks this litigation attempt is for settlement out of court. The ramifications of any action is the beginning of the end to fighting.

To be cynical and somewhat insensitive, placing a warning label on a ladder on the dangers of failling is rididoncuous.